YourVoice.Now 摘要
公民自由透明度与问责制Requires a Supreme Court ethics code, outside review of complaints against justices, and new rules for when judges must leave a case.
公民自由
Advocacy groups that file friend-of-court briefs would have to make public the names of their largest donors. Normal business sales and most investments are not counted.
透明度与问责制
The Supreme Court would have to write a code of conduct for justices within 180 days, after public comment. The Court would post its ethics rules online in a form people can search and download.
Anyone could file a signed, sworn complaint that a justice broke the code or the law. Five top appeals judges, picked at random, could use subpoenas to look into it. They would post what they find unless they say to drop it.
The Chief Justice's top aide would write gift and disclosure rules for justices and their law clerks. The rules must match the gift and disclosure rules for members of Congress.
A judge or justice would have to leave a case if they, their spouse, their minor child, or a private company they own got gifts, income, or paid travel from a party. This covers the 6 years before the case through its end.
A judge would have to leave a case if a party lobbied or spent large sums to back the judge's nomination. The word lobbied here follows its meaning in federal lobbying law.
A party could file a sworn request saying a judge must step aside. The judge must either step aside or send it to 3 judges from other courts, and the case pauses until they rule. For a justice, the rest of the Supreme Court decides.
Today a judge should learn their own money ties and try to learn their family's. Judges would now have to find out both. They must tell all sides right away about any possible conflict.
Within 1 year, court rules would make each side and outside groups list gifts, pay, or paid trips given to any justice from 2 years before the case to its end. They would also list money spent to back a justice's nomination.
Anyone filing a friend-of-court brief in a federal court would name who helped write it. They would also name anyone who gave over $100,000, or at least 3% of a group's yearly income, last year. The courts' main office would check this every year.
Each federal court would post a notice online when a judge leaves a case or a panel rules on a request to remove one. The notice must give each reason, with private details left out.
关于本法案的更多内容
If you are in a federal court case, you could get a fair ruling on whether your judge should step aside. A judge given a sworn request to step aside would have to do so or send it to 3 judges from other courts. The case would pause until they rule. For a Supreme Court justice, the other justices would decide. Judges would also have to step aside if a party gave them, their spouse, or their minor child gifts or income. That covers the 6 years before the case through its end. The same goes for a party that lobbied or spent large sums to back the judge's nomination. Judges would have to learn their family's money ties. They would have to tell both sides right away about any possible conflict. Court websites would post each case a judge leaves, with the reasons. Within 180 days, the Supreme Court would have to adopt a written code of conduct for justices, after public comment. Other federal judges would get a new code on the same timeline. The Court would post its ethics rules online in a form you can search. Anyone could file a signed, sworn complaint against a justice. Five chief judges of the appeals courts, picked at random, would review it. They could hold hearings and issue subpoenas. Unless they advise dropping a complaint, they would publish their findings within 30 days. Justices and their law clerks would follow gift and disclosure rules as strict as those for Congress. Anyone who files a friend-of-the-court brief (amicus brief) in a federal court would have to name who helped write it. They would also name anyone who gave them more than $100,000 last year. Groups would name anyone who gave at least 3% of their yearly income. Parties and these groups would list any gifts they gave a justice, starting 2 years before the case. Courts would write rules to block or strike a brief that would force a judge off a case. For most households, nothing changes unless you are part of a federal court case.
国会摘要
Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025 This bill makes various changes related to the ethical standards, financial disclosure requirements, and recusal requirements that apply to Supreme Court Justices. Among the changes, the bill requires the Supreme Court to adopt a code of conduct for Justices and establish procedures to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct; adopt rules governing the disclosure of gifts, income, or reimbursements received by the Justices and law clerks that are at least as rigorous as the House and Senate disclosure rules; and establish procedural rules requiring each party or amicus to disclose any gift, income, or reimbursement provided to Justices. Additionally, the bill expands the circumstances under which a Justice or judge must be disqualified; and requires the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference to establish procedural rules for prohibiting the filing of or striking an amicus brief that would result in the disqualification of a Justice, judge, or magistrate judge.
详细信息
- 国会届次
- 119th
- 议院
- HOUSE
- 状态
- 委员会审议中
- 行动
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 行动日期
- 2025-05-20
- 添加日期
- 2026-10-22
记录 0116f369-1962-49ec-811b-6f30a28cfdf6 · JSON
喜欢这种一看就懂的法案解读吗？
我们正在开发一款 App，为国会的每项法案都提供这种简明解读，也让您可以直接向民选代表表达投票意向。我们是一支小团队，正准备上线，希望让投资人看到真实的用户需求。希望您能成为其中一员。帮我们一起把它做出来。留下您的电子邮箱，App 上线的第一时间，我们就通知您。